Another Wikileaks email dump came out this week, and there are all sorts of windows into the Clintons’ world that should give Americans pause. This candid look into the liberal mind, and the Clinton campaign psyche, reveals not only the disgust they have for Catholics, but for those who choose to believe in something more than social standing and progressive politics.

The exchange features John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that is part and parcel of the Obama & Clinton world; Jen Palmieri, the communications director for Hillary; John Podesta, chairman of Hillary’s campaign; and longtime Clinton confidant, aide, and former chief of staff for Bill Clinton.

The email chain begins with a subject line: “Conservative Catholicism” with Halpin writing:

Ken Auletta’s latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.

It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” Palmieri responded. “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Had this been conservatives talking about some liberal cause celebre, the media and Planet Clinton would be feasting on it and calling for the heads of all involved. Imagine for a moment if you replaced the actors with conservatives and Catholicism and the conversation topic with Black Lives Matter, LGTB rights, or women. The rebukes would come fast and furious, and with wicked vengeance.

Another email shows Podesta discussing the groups he founded to incite rebellion and schism within the Church, when confronted with the suggestion of a “Catholic Spring” against church doctrine and leadership in favor of “gender equality.”

As conservatives react to these revelations, it is important to not the controversy does not center on the actors in these emails. Rather, it should center around the beliefs being discussed in these email chains.

It is unfathomable to Clinton allies that “enlightened minds” would expose their children to “systematic thought” or “backwards gender relations” that teach a man and wife are the normative family construct. Likewise, these liberals cannot understand that social conservatives or Catholics would believe what they do because they believe it to be true, rather than just “socially acceptable.”

Palmieri seems to insinuate that Catholicism is supposed to be somewhat “liberal” or at least socially acceptable as such. But in doing so, she condemns what these Clinton surrogates have dubbed “conservative Catholicism,” which is really just Catholicism that hasn’t been repurposed towards her party’s political ends.

Podesta puts the cherry on top, when he prods fun at “Thomistic thought” and “subsidiarity” and those who don’t understand them. He seems to say that Catholicism, especially in this conservative form, is nothing more than a set of misunderstood ancient beliefs that are mere window dressing for high society types on the Right to justify their “backwards” views on marriage, the family, abortion, contraception, etc.

It goes to show that tolerance is a one-way street for progressives. Liberals don’t actually want tolerance, acceptance, and free thought. What they want is a society constructed on intellectual pillars of progressivism. Thomism is an archaic “systematic” thought construct, but Alinskyism is enlightenment. Subsidiarity is a tool of fools, while Rawlsian justice is the pathway to utopia.

Brian Burch of CatholicVote summed it up best saying:

Everyone has a unique faith journey, and it’s just insulting to make blanket statements maligning people’s motives for converting to another faith tradition. Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups she would dismissed. Catholics will be watching Hillary Clinton to see whether she thinks our religious faith should be respected, or whether it’s fair game to mock us.

Just as impoverished in this email exchange is the recipients’ view of religion. Theology is not something to be judged on its claims and pathway to the truth, but rather or on how “socially acceptable” its manifestations are. Political views shouldn’t flow from revealed truth; rather, revealed truth must be contorted until it matches political agendas.

It doesn’t matter that what they call “Christian Democracy” in the American context which, as R.R. Reno explains in his recent book, was little more than an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism that was quickly secularized and co-opted into the modern progressive fold, to the detriment of Christian truth. It doesn’t matter those “backwards” ideals carry with them millennia of philosophical tradition that precede and supersede the Left’s modern and post-modern social experiments. What matters is what you can talk about at a cocktail party, and how it gets along with everyone else’s plans for the Republic.

The truly tragic thing is that the mentality is more widespread than any serious person of faith would like to admit. The incomprehensibility of objective truth believed by faith, near-universal on the American Left, strikes to some of the most important issues of our time.

The fact that nuns have to go to the Supreme Court to defend their conscience rights against a contraception mandate, and that churches in Massachusetts are now suing for thei basic religious rights against a so-called “non-discrimination” order speaks volumes. How else would we end up with a Democrat presidential candidate who believes that religious beliefs have to be changed to accommodate her abortion agenda? How else would we have her running mate, merely the latest in a long line of “Catholic” Democrats whose “personal” beliefs on abortion dare not interfere with their shilling for the party line?

And this theological poverty has also left our discussions on conscience to infect our discourse on national security. At a panel discussion last month, Dr. Sebastian Gorka explained how an inability to “get” religion is crippling our efforts to fight jihadism.

“If you don’t have faith, yourself, you will never understand our enemy; you will never understand the logic of a suicide bomber,” he explained at the 2016 Values Voters Summit. “The trouble is that we have a political elite on the Left — and, unfortunately, sometimes on the Right — that does not take faith seriously. If they go to church or temple, it’s a cool networking thing with the coffee and doughnuts afterward.”

Unfortunately for Catholics, and most likely other supposedly “backwards” faith groups, a Hillary Clinton win in November meansthis mentality is only going to march further and more boldly into our lives. When it makes perfect sense to sue nuns for not buying the pill and openly mock someone for having their child Baptized in the River Jordan, it is truly frightening to imagine what comes next. (For more from the author of “Hey Catholics, This Is What Team Hillary Really Thinks of You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In 1993, the president of Wellesley College approved a new rule upon being contacted by Bill Clinton’s White House. The rule stated that all senior theses written by a president or first lady of the United States would be kept under lock and key. The rule was meant to keep the public ignorant about the radical ties of the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the radical Marxist organizer, Saul Alinsky. The 92-page thesis was titled, “There is only the fight…: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

The thesis became unlocked after the Clintons left the White House and is now posted online. After being ruled by Barack Obama, another Alinskyite, for 8 years, perhaps one might think the fact that the modern Democratic Party is completely taken over by Alinskyites is old news, but the connection between Alinsky and Hillary is special.

Hillary describes Alinsky as a “neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him, conflict is the route to power.” Alinsky’s central focus, she notes, is that the community organizer must understand that conflict will arise and to redirect it and, as she quoted him in her thesis, be “…dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions… to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function–to agitate to the point of conflict.”

The thesis in and of itself is limited to whether or not “social justice” can be attained through the tactics described by Alinsky in “Reveille For Radicals,” and the numerous speeches he gave on hundreds of college campuses in the 1950s and 1960s. What had become clear was that Alinsky’s previous organizing had fallen apart and almost all attempts to recapture the original intent had gone by the wayside.

Hillary noted that, “Alinsky’s lessons in organizing and mobilizing community action independent of extra-community strings appear to have been lost in the face of the lure of OEO money.” Pointing out that the power of the government took away the work of the “local organizer.” It is here that we see her light bulb illuminate. With this reasoning, the better approach would be to be the government who had the power to force social change.

But just because Hillary criticized Alinsky’s model in 1969 doesn’t mean she disagrees with his politics. In fact, it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized. She criticized Alinsky, not so much for his tactics, but for his focus on organization. What is possibly the best way to put Hillary’s philosophy is what she told the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, “I don’t believe you change hearts, you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

Hillary questions whether organizing as Alinsky did in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago and eventually across the country was effective enough because of the unanticipated results. She pointed to other lefty thinkers that criticized Alinsky as a “showman rather than an activist.”

It should also be noted that while Alinsky’s “Reville for Radicals” was directed at labor organizing, “Rules For Radicals” was directed at middle class youth, instructing them how to carry out his model in a new age. Ever the social observer, Alinsky recognized that the blue-collar workers of the 1930s were no longer, “where it’s at,” but that middle class youth of the 60s was ripe for organization. But also, the emphasis in the prologue of working within the system is eerily similar to Clinton’s argumentation. In her 2003 book, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

At the end of Clinton’s thesis, she includes correspondence she received from Alinsky, and notes the personal interviews she conducted with him: twice in Boston in October 1968 and once at Wellesley in January 1969. She followed his organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, which was a training institute for communist radicals. She credited Saul Alinsky for both “providing a topic” and “offering me a job.” She never questioned the organization’s ultimate goal to achieve a Marxist utopia. What drove Hillary was how to get there.

Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the 40s, 50s and 60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling. For 75 years, inner city blacks have been poor, labor unions have worked to put their members out of a job, and everyday there is some new group claiming it doesn’t have equality. All of these groups have been targeted by these so-called organizational geniuses. No matter what happens, either by the power/conflict ideals of Alinsky and Obama or by power grabs/money laundering of the Clintons, the lives of the people get worse. It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it.

Hillary kept in contact with Alinsky throughout college and while in law school, she wrote him a letter claiming that she missed corresponding with him. The letter began, “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” — she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

David Brock, in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter.” That is an apt label. Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.

Saul’s daughter has it all figured out. (For more from the author of “Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the Truth About Hillary the Media Won’t Tell You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.